splitter repairs

[jerseydevil]

I bought a used splitter and have been using it for a few weeks. I notice the cylinder has a good bit of side to side play on the frame. Also, the wedge pulls to the left( the operators side) when it gets into really solid wood. I am not too concerned, but I figure I can tighten things up a bit, since I noticed a few elongated holes and bent bolts etc. Here are some pics for the gurus to ponder. I welcome any advice.
The first 2 pics are of the wedge guides(or whatever they're called), the bolts were bent, so the lower piece of steel was looser than it should be on the Ibeam. I plan to replace them. The bolt closest to the cylinder has a bushing, the front (and most bent one) did not have a bushing. Should it? I also think there is too much clearance between the wedge guide and the I beam, which seems to allow the wedge to skip from side to side. I'll have to go look at a new machine to see where it should be.
The third pic is the rear cylinder mount. There is clearly too much clearance here. It looks like the tabs have been spread apart due to several years of use. It's to be expected, but can it be repaired? I know I can heat them and bend them back, or put in shims, what do you think?
lastly is a pic of the wedge assembly. Pretty straight forward. Again, it is kinda loose from years of use. Any thoughts on replacements? Would I be better off with a different style, maybe something with a fourway wedge? I don't know...
Like I said, I expect this type of wear from a heavily used splitter, so I am not
too worried, I just want to prolong the machines life, and as we all know, when stuff gets loose, stuff breaks down.
Your thoughts? Thanks

 

[jerseydevil]

OK, it just hit me, I can't sandwich the wedge onto the beam any tighter, with the bushing in place, plus on the opposite sie, there is a stationary piece of steel. The side you see in the pics is the one with the pivoting thing that is supposed to keep the wedge going straight. Anyone know how it is adjusted? or if it should be? I see there are two bolts that probably get turned in a bit, but I am not sure it should be done yet.

 

[Ductape]

I would say all six of the bolts on the wedge should have the round spacer on them. They should allow very little side to side play in the wedge. You might even want to make up something solid (say, out of heavy bar stock?), and drill the three holes per side using the bottom piece as a template. Would a good plastic, like nylon withstand the pressure? Someone here should know. That way it would also slide up and down the beam well, instead of metal to metal. The rear cylinder pivot i'd be less worried about. If they are paralell, i'd say put a shim or two between the plate and cylinder. If they are not, straighten them first. As far as the wedge. It doesn't look bad. I do think a decent fabricator should be able to make you up a four way adaptor. Perhaps make one that just slides over the original, so it can be removed when you want to go back to just the two way.

 

[Ductape]

OK, it just hit me, I can't sandwich the wedge onto the beam any tighter, with the bushing in place, plus on the opposite sie, there is a stationary piece of steel. The side you see in the pics is the one with the pivoting thing that is supposed to keep the wedge going straight. Anyone know how it is adjusted? or if it should be? I see there are two bolts that probably get turned in a bit, but I am not sure it should be done yet.

Sounds similar to my MTD. There are two bolts on one side, with jam nuts to keep them in the desired position. They should be tight enough to allow very slight side to side play.... allowing the wedge to move freely on the beam.

 

[mga]

this is how i designed mine. i got the idea from one of the members here. it has only about 1/8" movement in any direction.

so far, nothing has moved the cylinder.....


http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k228/mga_01/?action=view&current=DSCF0207.jpg

 

[tawilson]

this is how i designed mine. i got the idea from one of the members here. it has only about 1/8" movement in any direction.

so far, nothing has moved the cylinder.....


http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k228/mga_01/?action=view&current=DSCF0207.jpg

Mines like that but with only 3 bolts per side. I am adding some more. That looks stout.

 

[ray benson]

Mines like that but with only 3 bolts per side. I am adding some more. That looks stout.

Same here - 3 bolts, 1/2" dia., grade5 on each side and impacted down with locking nuts.

 

[jerseydevil]

Thanks for the pics ray. I have been making adjustments to the machine, and should know soon how well they work. I guess I could lock the cylinder down like you did with a u bolt or something. Is that allthread you used? Thanks.

 

[mga]

Thanks for the pics ray. I have been making adjustments to the machine, and should know soon how well they work. I guess I could lock the cylinder down like you did with a u bolt or something. Is that allthread you used? Thanks.

if you meant mine, yep. it's 1/2" threaded rod.

i learned (the hard way) that it's best to keep everything tight with minimal movement of the cylinder. some may disagree, but, considering the forces being applied when splitting wood, i chose to keep the cylinder solid and the ram as steady as possible.

 

[ray benson]

The pics were by MGA. I do have a bracket near the front of the cylinder. But it has a little clearance between it and the cylinder.It is only in place to keep the rod from bending when splitting the gnarly crazy grained pieces. It hasn't been needed yet and I have used the splitter about 20 years.

 

[jerseydevil]

Yeah, sorry about the mix up. Thanks mga. I saw another one with the ubolt and it was an old machine. Seems to held up.
Like I said, I will have it all back toghether soon, I just have to cut down some half inch pipe to replace the bushings. I am gonna put one in back because it was ther originally and one in ront, cause it seems like it is needed. I think the previouse owner may have removed a few parts that would help hold things in place but I can't be sure. I'll just keep working on it as time allows.
I still feel I got a super deal, and probably got my moneys worth already, if you consider what they cost to rent. Hear that all you people who said "just rent one , for the weekend, once a year". I got a lot of wood split, and I still have more. I would have paid for several weekends so far at $85 a day. and as stated, I would still have to rent it several more times.Granted, I am not spending all day with the thing. I guess I could have done it all by now.
The best part is, I can sell it and actually make a profit.
Thanks for the input and such, and listening to my rant.

 

[CylinderService]

U-bolts around the cylinder

U-bolts over the barrel are usually not recommended. If the cylinder is held rigid by having two mounts on the barrel (rear clevis & the U-bolt), when the pusher moves out of line a little, the rod must bend, because the barrel isn't free to line up with it. You certainly can't rely on the rod to keep the pusher in line. Unless the rod end device (pusher on a splitter) is perfectly guided, the cylinder should only have one mount on the barrel and one on the rod end. Side load on rods make cylinder glands wear out and leak.
I know that U-bolt idea is tempting, but let the cylinder float to keep the rod lined up.

 

[jerseydevil]

Do you think I should tighten up the far end of the cylinder, where it mounts to the beam?

 

[CylinderService]

I wouldn't make it too tight. It's usually good for the cylinder to be able to "float" a little. But not too much - a 16th of an inch play around your pin connections is good, but no more than an 8th. More than that and a heavy load will probably bend the pin.

Don

 

[dutch]

I wouldn't make it too tight. It's usually good for the cylinder to be able to "float" a little. But not too much - a 16th of an inch play around your pin connections is good, but no more than an 8th. More than that and a heavy load will probably bend the pin.

Don

second that.

 

[mga]

U-bolts over the barrel are usually not recommended. If the cylinder is held rigid by having two mounts on the barrel (rear clevis & the U-bolt), when the pusher moves out of line a little, the rod must bend, because the barrel isn't free to line up with it. You certainly can't rely on the rod to keep the pusher in line. Unless the rod end device (pusher on a splitter) is perfectly guided, the cylinder should only have one mount on the barrel and one on the rod end. Side load on rods make cylinder glands wear out and leak.
I know that U-bolt idea is tempting, but let the cylinder float to keep the rod lined up.

i understand what you're saying, don, but my last cylinder bent because the end of the barrel wasn't secured. however, i will add that the guide/slide wasn't the best either. that may have been the main factor why it bent, but i wasn't going to risk another cylinder when i built my new splitter.

the rear clevis is mounted with a 1" pin, where it does have some play to it. when i mounted the rod to the guide, the pin there also has some play. i spent quite a bit of time aligning the cylinder movement to ensure a straight push before finally mounting it. don't laugh, but i even used a laser line down the H beam to ensure that the cylinder would be dead center extracted or retracted.

with that, i probably don't need the large U bolt to hold it down, but it's there and this thing has split more wood than i can count without a problem. my theory is that since there is alot of forces being applied when pushing, the most important thing is to design a slide that will give very little movement in any direction, since not all logs being split are perfectely square to the slide. i just wanted to be sure the cylinder wasn't going to take the brunt of any lateral forces.

i've seen many cylinders designed with square blocks over both ends to bolt it in place, but, since mine was round i didn't have that luxury. again, when designing a splitter, you should ensure that you're dead center to the beam.

over-kill? perhaps, but it's problem free.

 

[CylinderService]

I understand what you're saying - I've seen a few made that way. It sounds like you're using cylinders with rods that aren't strong enough, which is pretty common for cylinders on log splitters. If the rod bent, it was way over the load it should have had, which isn't your fault, just not a strong enough rod for the job. The U-bolt is compensating for the extra flex in the rod. And the flexibility of the rod may keep it from wearing out the gland as the pusher wiggles back & forth. You're right about minimizing slide movement, and you must have done a good job of it.
In the cylinder business we talk about "column load", which depends on the rod strength, the load, and rod length. Ordinary splitter cylinders (4 x 24) should have at least a 1 3/4" rod, made of high quality steel. Prince cylinders use much stronger steel for their rods than the imports (we can tell when we machine it). You can get away with cheaper rods if they're 2" in diameter, in a 4" bore.

Don

 

[cuttinscott]

U-bolts over the barrel are usually not recommended. If the cylinder is held rigid by having two mounts on the barrel (rear clevis & the U-bolt), when the pusher moves out of line a little, the rod must bend, because the barrel isn't free to line up with it. You certainly can't rely on the rod to keep the pusher in line. Unless the rod end device (pusher on a splitter) is perfectly guided, the cylinder should only have one mount on the barrel and one on the rod end. Side load on rods make cylinder glands wear out and leak.
I know that U-bolt idea is tempting, but let the cylinder float to keep the rod lined up.

I wouldn't make it too tight. It's usually good for the cylinder to be able to "float" a little. But not too much - a 16th of an inch play around your pin connections is good, but no more than an 8th. More than that and a heavy load will probably bend the pin.

Don

+1



Scott